Original Message

It's all about profit margin.  If you have the demand for twin, there will be a supply.  IFR/VFR, I mush rather have a twin (barring cost prohibitions) just in casse there is that single engine failure, compressor stall, Hi side/Low side FADEC failure.  But I also understand economics and running a single isn't cheap either.  Especially for those tree-fiddy workers.

Multis are generally more complicated even with modern systems- systems fail and often confuse the pilot. I'll argue that the advantage of a twin only applies in operations that understand the difference. Single engines are simpler to train and operate, without question. A single engine attitude in a twin results in stupid mistakes, typified by a newly qualified twin pilots' statement "I have two engines, I can fly in any speed/altitude/load condition I want to as long as I'm less than max gross..."

I flew a program with three twins assigned to the contract. In a fligh to base, light, an aircraft had a low side falure with only one passenger who had THOUSANDS of hours in twins with an overseas operator, who attempted to persuade the PIC not to reduce the good engines' power lever. In the water well short of the beach. The FAR minimum training time and flight test standards, I believe resulted in a poor understanding of identifying the issue.